Love Languages: Gift Giving and the Gift of Self

This final gesture of love is last in the genetic order in a certain way.  Giving gifts to one another is the least important gesture when it comes to building community - not that it isn't important, but compared to the practical gestures of service and quality time gift giving is secondary.  Our experience of gift giving is usually connected with celebration, and celebration is important punctually but loses its meaning if it becomes the norm.  Christmas is once a year, birthdays are once a year, anniversaries are by definition once a year (from the Latin word annus meaning year.)  Dates have a connection with the natural world.  The earth returns to the same position with respect to the sun, and we celebrate the person or persons, who, on a day just like today, on this same day many years ago, we were born, or got marries etc.  This is cause for celebration of course, we celebrate the persons who have changed our lives, who have become part of our story, we honor them and thank them with gifts.  Gift giving is truly a gesture of love, and that is why in another sense it is not secondary.  Gift giving is a gesture that manifests the heart of all the other gestures of love.

Gifts can be useful, gifts can bring pleasure, but the heart of gift giving is love and the gift of self.  Material gifts given are a symbol of the gift of self, and this is at the core of all our other gestures of love.  The gift of self requires total freedom, and a choice to love another person.  I will quickly go through the languages of love we already looked at to examine how each of them requires a true gift of self in order to be authentic.

We first looked at the language of physical touch, physical gestures of love.  Physical affection requires a certain amount of warmth, and at the same time must avoid the trap of emotional fusion.  An embrace has a double effect, both on the one embracing and on the one embraced.  Without an embrace becoming cold - without it losing its authenticity which relies on a true gift of self - it must also avoid getting lost in the emotion and selfish pleasure of the gesture.  To avoid this, it helps to remember that an embrace is not primarily for oursleves, but for the other person...  otherwise the gesture loses its quality as a gift of self, and becomes possessive.

With affirmation, or saying what is good, the gesture's authenticity relies on the truth of the affirmation.  If saying the good is seen as a gift, it is in bearing witness to the truth that the good finds its value.  Saying the truth is a gift when it elevates the other person, and so it therefore requires having not only a true judgment, but also the discernment of what makes that truth attractive.  So, in fact, affirmation implies a gift of self because we reveal ourselves as being drawn to the other person because of something truly attractive about them.  Allowing oneself to be attracted to another person as person - a process that is necessary to affirm them truthfully - involved thereby the gift of self.

The smile is another gesture that depends upon the gift of self.  For a smile to be authentic, and therefore a true gesture, it implies or requires a discovery of the true attractiveness of another person.  When we are happy, it is easier to smile, when we are sad or angry, it is harder.  There is a choice however, sometimes through tears or gritted teeth, to show the other person that they are good and dear to us.  The eyes are the window of the soul, and they communicate - despite the mask we may try to wear - our openness or "closedness" to the other person.  A smile begins with the eyes not with the lips.  A smile begins with the way we see reality or the person before us.  And once again, a smile is the gesture that accompanies the attraction we experience to another person.  It is the manifestation of the gift of self that occurs when we respond to the goodness we discover in another person.  The smile begins with a gaze, and the gaze begins with a choice to look at a person as person, and to allow oneself to discover what is hidden yet attractive.

The gestures involving taste - acquiring the tastes of others - could be more easily said by speaking of adaptation and flexibility.  How can we understand the gestures which accommodate other's preferences as implying the gift of self?  We could say that to a certain extent, adjusting one's sensitivity has more to do with the way or manner in which one gives oneself than with the actual gift of self.  On the other hand, adjusting or adapting oneself to another person is essentially leaving oneself behind to make room for the other person in one's manner of being.  In this way, it is a gift of self to the extent that we allow the other person to modify us.  This requires trust of course, and all the respect due to persons.

Being present at home is also a gesture that implies the gift of self.  Presence goes hand in hand with availability.  Being in the house but unavailable is no the same thing as being present.  Being available at home is therefore truly a gift of self.  Without this gesture of presence the rest of home-life will become strained.  But this gesture of presence extends beyond the home.  Wherever you are, your presence has the possibility of being a gift to the people around you.  At a very basic level, as I wrote earlier when looking at the connection between presence and the sense of smell, we can see that this involves hygiene, and at a much higher level we could call this charisma.  This is certainly due in part to personal qualities and at the same  time it is a gesture.  The gesture of presence is the crowning gesture of all the other sensible gestures.  Presence takes on its quality as a gesture of love to the extent that the other sensible gestures (Physical Touch, Affirmation, Smile, Adaptation/Flexibility) are developed and exercised.

For service to be an authentic gesture of love, it requires the gift of self as well.  Being efficient and getting a  job done is important, but it is secondary when it comes to love.  When we perform a service our intention must arise from the free gift of ourselves for the gesture to communicate love.  If we remain at the level of justice, and demand others to work just because everyone has to carry their fair share of the household chores - the community may operate efficiently, but the personal element is crushed.  Of course, when justice is ignored completely, community life becomes inhuman.  A service that is also a gesture of love is the free gift of self - the gift of one's time or talent - whereby one becomes useful for others, or for another person.  For service to be a gesture of love, it cannot simply be a useful function, it must be performed freely and concretely for others or for one particular person.  Once again we see that the gift of self is at the heart of love gestures.

Quality time clearly implies the gift of self.  Gift both in the passive sense and in the active sense.  Perhaps it is important to examine this point a little closer.  We could reduce the notion of the gift of self to an activity, to being an extrovert for example - but the gift of self also implies making one's person accessible, being open, and attentive.  A gift allows itself to be unwrapped. Someone who is a little extroverted in the gift of themselves is like a child who wants to help everyone unwrap the gift he gives them.  People are like onions, they have layers.  As we spend quality time with people, they progressive make their way through the layers to our core.  This process takes time and advances at a unique and personal rhythm.  At times the gift of ourselves is passive, at times active, and the gestures of quality time really highlight this balance.  Quality time does not have a goal if not the gift of self - our person is given by an unveiling of what we think and what we feel about our lives, our search for meaning, and it is also given by our listening, by our welcoming of the other person.

This concludes the more philosophical/experiential analysis of gestures and the languages of love.  With my next post, I will begin trying to elevate the analysis.  Thought can become abstract, but love cannot become abstract or it will die.  Authentic gestures are essential for the exercise and growth of love.  That is why with the passing of a loved one, love understands that unless it finds some concrete way of being in communion - a gesture - it too will die.  Our lives are connected, so when a loved one dies it is like an amputation.  Our heart cannot rest because its resting place has disappeared.  Our heart continues to be drawn to them even though their existence escapes us.  Do they still exist?  If they have ceased to exist, why do they continue to influence our love?  Why does our heart continue to seek them?  If they have truly ceased to exist, love is vain, and if love is vain, life itself is in vain.  But our heart indicates the path to the source of love, the source of goodness.  If we can no longer exercise our love for a friend who has disappeared, we can use the movement of love we still have for them to discover the source of their goodness.  When we discover this source, our heart again finds rest and meaning.  This source is what religious traditions call God.  Does God use gestures to express love?  If so, what are they?  Are there gestures that we can perform to express our love for God?  Are there special revealed gestures of love?

Love Languages: Quality Time and Conversation

The second specifically constructive gesture or language of love is Quality Time.  The majority of people cannot just live next each other without quality personal contact.  There are hermits of course, but as Aristotle reminds us in his book on the City (The Politics, book I, part II), a man who lives apart from the community is either a god or a beast.  The consequences of being away from the community are either divinizing or de-humanizing - we either become contemplatives or monsters.  It is important to note Aristotle's other surprise at his discovery of man's contemplative vocation, and that is about how few of us actually live the lives we were made to live (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Ch. 5).  Aristotle discovered that the greatest happiness man can attain - the activity which he alone of all the animals is able to perform - is the contemplation of his Creator.  And of course, he remarks just how rarely people discover their capacity for contemplation, and how rarely even those who discover their capacity actually contemplate (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X, Ch. 8, Metaphysics Book XII, Part 7).  With those remarks, it becomes fairly easy to discern - almost conclusively - that when someone separates themselves from the community, even for apparently valid reasons, they place their lives and their happiness in danger.  Even hermits live in community - though their community activities are reduced to a strict minimum.

Man's happiness is not only found in contemplation however, it is also in the exercise of friendship and in a  bond of friendship-love.  This is a second important point for community life.  Living "separated" from the community is possible even when one lives in physical proximity of other persons.  Pope John Paul II wrote about this phenomenon in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae referring specifically to the modern conception of individual freedom:

"This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus soci- ety becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail." (EV, §20)

We commonly refer to this phenomenon as individualism.  A human community is not just the juxtaposition of individuals - people living in physical or even emotional proximity - with no deeply spiritual bonds.  A human community is founded on personal friendships - personal bonds which are more than just circumstantial.  In order for these personal friendships to come about, to thrive, and to become a solid foundation, there must be a concrete exchange of persons.  This is where the love language of quality time comes in to play.  Quality time is sharing something personally, it is what permits a personal exchange.  Quality time is a moment where what is truly personal is made manifest, where what was hidden about the other person is shared.  While the gestures of quality time are diverse, I think the essential gesture of quality time is conversation.

Artistic expression must have some role as a gesture of quality time, but it is more connected with the gesture of gift giving in my opinion.  Art does not have a principally ethical intention at its origin - so the effects of art or of artistic inspiration on the communication of personal love are secondary.  Beauty does not increase love as such, but does awaken the mind and heart to a certain extent.  Quality time could involve singing a love song to someone you love.  What is essential is the veracity of the words.  If the music itself isn't beautiful, but the words are honest, personal, and true, the intention is still transmitted.  On the other hand, if the music is beautiful but the words are banal, impersonal, or quite simply lies, it could be artistically appreciated but lacking ethical intention, or worse, amoral.

What we do see then, are degrees of personal significance in the time we can spend with each other.  And the degree of personal significance is the quality of the time we spend with each other. In order to understand what it is that makes some moments or activities more meaningful than others, we should try to understand or discover what we could call the "principle of meaning."  What is it that determines whether or not the time we spend with someone will be meaningful?  Can we always make the time we spend with someone meaningful, or do we have to accept that sometimes it will be superficial?  Does the meaning of a moment spent with someone depend on both persons?  Is it possible for one person to find time spent with someone meaningful while the other person does not?

I think that true quality time takes two, it cannot be a completely one-sided affair.  A personal exchange requires both exposing one's true self and receiving the other's true self.  This implies trust and allowing oneself to be vulnerable.  Quality time is not dramatic, but rather the experience of another as a person and not just an individual.

One may be led to believe that quality time is always something deep, intimate, and perhaps secret, but quality time can also be simple, light and joyful.  There is no reason to oppose superficial and profound.  The problem comes in when we limit our relationships with others to either the superficial or the profound.  The problem comes in when we refuse to be vulnerable or when we oblige someone to become vulnerable.  The word "superficial" has negative connotations when used to describe relationships, which may sometimes be the case.  However, I do not think it is right to accuse others of being superficial.  We can accuse ourselves of being superficial, but not other people.  If someone does not choose to reveal themselves to us, perhaps it is because we have not yet sufficiently earned their trust, perhaps it is because they are more receptive than revealing in their personality.  Perhaps it is just because they lack experience or reflection, so they are innocent or childlike, but not superficial.  So if we look at quality time, there are both a variety of forms and degrees.  Quality time is sharing human experience in a personal way.  Sharing human experience could be either sharing the experience itself - having the same experience at the same time - or sharing experience by communicating/transmitting it.  Culture has this very end in view.

Once again, we are looking at gestures of quality time -and quality time is one of the two constructive gestures of love.  By gestures of service we demonstrate that we depend upon one another materially, that we need each other in very concrete and basic ways, and that we serve one another - we do things for one another - not just because we have to, but because others need our help or our services, and we want to do what we can to help.  In a small community or family, the services are undertaken for the good (well-being) of those who live together, it incarnates in a fundamental, material way our choice to live together.  They are not undertaken for money, and this brings up an interesting reflection on the education of children.  In today's materialistic, individualistic society, how do we educate children to have a balanced perspective on the material common good?  Some have suggested giving children an allowance based on their participation in household chores.  Though the motivation involved is extremely effective in getting children to do stuff, it also reinforces the modern materialistic, individualistic mentality - which is undesirable.  Building a strong and balanced family or community life requires true cooperation and profound personal bonds.  True cooperation requires having the same end in view.  And the end of family life is the good of all the members of the household.  So if household chores become paid jobs, the goal is no longer to live with each other, and it does not create an atmosphere of trust and mutual dependence.  Money becomes the perceived fruit of our labors, and we depend less upon each other than upon the power of money.  We rely less upon others for our happiness, and more upon money.

Perhaps that is why materialism and individualism go hand in hand, and we are seduced by individualism because it resembles autonomy - which is a personal good.  But while persons are stable, strong, and reliable to the extent that they discover and develop according to their substantial autonomy, they are good to the extent that they are able to enter into profound personal communion with others.  In fact, the human person is revealed through communion with other persons, not through the manifestation of autonomy.  So the confusion between substantial autonomy and an individualistic materialism has encouraged the separation of persons at the heart of the family and community.  Substantial autonomy gives us our depth as human persons, and this depth is revealed in the communion we have with other persons.  An individual material autonomy is important, but is not the essence of autonomy.  And someone who is materially independent does not necessarily know the source of their true autonomy - or worse they equate their autonomy with their independence.  A family or community is not build of independent members, but of autonomous persons who have chosen to depend upon one another, who have chosen to be responsible for one another.

Now, the quality time spent with members of the community or family strengthen the personal bonds which are what enable us, principally, to choose one another.  What are some specific ways we exercise quality time?  Quality time is what disposes to communion, and what realizes deep personal communion.  Conversation seems to me to be the most obvious and fundamental means of communion and ipso facto exercise of quality time.  I am sure there are other ways to spend quality time with others, but to skip conversation would be an error.  We don't speak merely to affirm one another, merely to say the good - we also speak to teach, to share our experiences, to try to understand our lives, and to expose our inner-self.  So conversation takes place at many levels, and can realize various degrees of communion.  In this way, we can look at making conversation as a gesture of love, a gesture of quality time.  There are different kinds of conversation (social, polite, planning, deep, superficial, awkward, interesting, boring, etc.) and there are different subjects.  Do the different levels of conversation correspond to the different levels of ethical acts?

Are we ever under an obligation to enter into dialog with someone?  Is there a fundamentally ethical motivation for conversation?  Can the language of quality time be spoken at the most basic ethical level? Does respect require us to spend quality time with people we don't even know?  Basic respect, as we have already seen, requires us to avoid harming others.  Therefore basic respect in the domain of quality time requires conversation to the extent that it would prevent pain or harm.  When someone initiates conversation with us, it is against basic respect to ignore them in most circumstances.  And in most circumstances, basic respect would require us to avoid imposing conversation on others.  Beyond the level of basic respect is that of politeness, and therefore polite conversation.  Polite conversation is a non-imposing invitation to conversation.  Polite conversation gives the other person permission to speak without forcing them to or obliging them to.  When we know that a human community is built on personal relationships, which requires the exchange of persons, politeness obliges engaging others - even strangers - in conversation.  Beyond polite conversation is socializing - conversation open to friendship.  In order for socializing to remain ethical however, it must remain finalized by friendship.  Friendly conversation that does not really change us, or bring us closer, remains superficial.  In friendly conversation, or socializing, a discovery of the other person allows trust to grow.  With growing trust comes the ability to expose one's person in a deeper way.  Therefore social conversation can be a disposition to deeper more personal conversation, which is one of the most important gestures of quality time.

My mother sent me an article about the relationship between people's happiness and the kinds of conversation they have.  Without getting into what it means to be happy, the article does offer an interesting perspective into the effects of conversation habits on our lives.  My cousin - I think she must be in middle school - likes to start conversations with me online.  She lacks a little follow-through though.  She say, "Hi," and I reply by returning the greeting and asking a question.  But since the first question isn't very interesting I usually only get a one word answer.  So then I ask a more interesting question - to which I get a brief reply.  Obviously, socializing requires certain skills that need time and a sense of responsibility to acquire.  These gestures of quality time and conversation contribute to the ambiance and culture of a family or community - quality time is what allows us to demonstrate concretely to one another that we are welcomed and received for who we are, as persons.